Book DescriptionIn Moonwalking with Einstein, author Joshua Foer spends one year training for the American Memory Olympics after observing the competition, and talking to some of the participants. Those who train insist that they are not savants and that anyone can learn to be a memory champion if they are willing to put in the hard work. Foer accepts the challenge and prepares for the competition.

Foer claims there is no scientific evidence to support what we commonly refer to as photographic (eidetic) memory. He suggests that individuals with excellent memories simply spend time concentrating on specific items, which leads to the ability to complete feats that display like photographic memory. He argues however, that these individuals do not take “snapshots” of the world as was previously believed, but instead used specific methods for improving memory. Foer explains that in nearly all disciplines there are people who seem to have unbelievable memories, waiters who do not need to write down orders, those who can determine the sex of a chicken in a few seconds, or musicians who can recall a long musical score with seemingly little effort. In some cases specific brain differences have been found in these individuals. In one example, the author writes that experienced London cabbies were found to have a larger posterior hippocampus than average, likely resulting from the vast cognitive map for locations and buildings they posses. Foer contends that in each of these scenarios, individuals who are experts in their fields simply work more quickly because they know what is important and what is not, thereby eliminating time and energy being wasted on unimportant information.

During his training, Foer adopts many memory techniques from the experts; one that is commonly used is chunking. Chunking works by associating what one is trying to learn with what they already know in long-term memory. Foer cites a runner named S.F. who has an amazing memory for numbers. S.F. took meaningless numbers and chunked them into running times, doing this dramatically improved his ability to recall random digits. Foer argues that S.F. does what memory experts do, which is not attributable to an outstanding memory but rather, the skill of taking new information and making it relevant. One’s experience aids memory in the future regardless of what that past experience, it is up to individuals to determine how to use their own expertise. Champion chess players use chunking to break up the chessboard into sections, they look at the borders between squares more than other (lower ranked) players and chunk the board into larger sections. Everyone has an excellent memory for something. Perhaps the difficulty is finding the proper cue for retrieving any given memory.

During his year of training, Foer finds himself memorizing license plates, information from obituaries, and other seemingly random information to practice his new skills. He wears blacked out goggles with small openings so that he is not distracted and reads endlessly from encyclopedias. He also immerses himself in the unique culture of those who participate in the Memory Olympics.

The memory experts with whom Foer trains argue that a focus on memory used to be the most important part of one’s education. Before books and other written works were readily available, stories and information was passed through word of mouth and ancient scripts carry many messages referring to the importance of memorization. This skill has been lost over many generations and now people read for quantity rather than quality, often forgetting most of what they have just read. Foer hopes to bring a bit of this back as he prepares himself for the competition. As the year progresses, he reaches a plateau, but then goes on to memorize a deck of cards in under 2 minutes. After he experiences improvements, he moves from wanting to just compete in the Memory Olympics to wanting to be competitive.

Foer also describes detriments related to losing one’s memory. He discusses the cases of E.P., Henry Molaison, and Clive Wearing (for more on Clive Wearing see Books for Psychology Class review for Forever Today) who both suffer from anterograde amnesia (which prevents the creation any new memories). Foer visits E.P. who is cognitively alert, but unaware of his memory problems. He believes that the president is FDR and reads the paper each morning even though by the time he has finished reading any given article, he has already forgotten the headline. He may eat breakfast three or four times in a day because he forgets that he has already had breakfast. He can however take a walk around the block by himself and trace a five-pointed star. In part, he can do these later activities because his procedural memory remains intact. Procedural memories, which are unlikely to me impacted by amnesia, deal with how to do something whereas episodic memories deal with the where and when of a person’s life and help individuals recall significant events. Finally, Semantic memories are what people know and are more free-floating (not associated with a specific event). Episodic memories are the type most likely to be impacted by amnesia. Semantic memories may also be damaged depending on the extent of the amnesia. Recent memories are the first to go for those with amnesia as well as those who suffer from Alzheimer’s because more recent memories have weaker neural networks and are more easily damaged.

On the flip side of the memory coin, are those individual who have an uncanny recollection for specific events yet score very low on traditional I.Q. tests. Daniel Tamment is known as a super savant. He learned Icelandic in one week and amazed the world by his ability to memorize numbers and calculate dates. Daniel claimed to use no mnemonic devices or other memory techniques; his Book Born on Blue Day became an international best seller. Foer met with Tamment to determine if he possesses a different set of skills than the mental athletes Foer met while training for the Memory Olympics. Tamment had an epileptic seizure at age 4 and attributes his “gift” to this experience. Tamment explains that he has synesthesia, and that for him numbers take on a unique shape, texture, and emotional tone. Tamment claims to have this experience for every number up to 10,000, which allows him to easily recall numbers. Foer challenges the idea that Tamment is a savant who does not use memory techniques. Tamment claims that he sees numbers as colors, which aid in recall, but when pressed by Foer to describe certain numbers, he cannot replicate the same colors he described in previous discussions. Kim Peek, the savant who inspired the film Rain Man, has Foer more convinced. Peek has an I.Q. of 87 and is socially deficient but not autistic. Peek has an odd shaped cerebellum and no corpus callosum, which may be what allows him to read two pages at the same time with two different eyes and retain nearly everything he has read. Peek cannot explain how or why he remembers information so well and when asked by Foer about his memory simply says, “I don’t know, I just remember”. Peek’s abilities are amazing and widespread but his feats are consistent with the type of abilities found in many other savants (albeit more extreme). There is some speculation that savant syndrome may be the result of damage to the left hemisphere because the abilities of savants are most often right brain activities.

Ultimately, Foer goes on to win the American Memory Championship. He is best at memorizing decks of cards and does this by placing the cards in his multiple memory palaces, using the method of loci. He uses his parent’s house as one location and places the cards to be recalled in different rooms of the house. In one of his strange visual images he pictures himself Moonwalking with Einstein. He is easily able to recall the cards by their placement in the memory palace and the strange visual connections he has created which catapults him to the championship. He goes on to compete in the World Memory Championship and places 13th out of 37 competitors, however, only the top 10 finishers are named “Grand Masters”. After the competition Foer, wonders how the year of memory training will help him in his everyday life. He indicates that it has helped him remember grocery lists and people’s names, but he has not used the techniques very often and still finds himself to be forgetful. In one case for example, he drove to dinner with his friends and took the subway home. He is now in agreement with those he met on the first day of the memory competition who indicated that anyone could learn to do this well; he just questions the everyday necessity of it all.

Book DescriptionMistakes Were Made (But Not By Me) uses relatable personal and global examples to demonstrate how individuals rationalize poor behavior. As the title suggests, we are far more likely to identify negative behaviors in others than in ourselves. The text provides many relatable examples of attribution theory and cognitive dissonance. George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq after 9-11 was in part based in the belief that Sadam Hussein was hiding weapons of mass destruction. Once thousands had died and billions of dollars had been spent without finding any weapons of mass destruction, he rationalized the invasion by explaining that we had gotten rid of “a vey bad guy”. Similar behavior can be seen when people do not report cash earnings on their income taxes, place personal items onto a business account, rationalize their lack of exercise, or refuse to take personal responsibility for their mistakes. We shape our memories in such a way that portrays us in the best light to protect our fragile self-esteem.

In marital surveys, when both spouses are asked to report what percentage of house cleaning they contribute to the household, the total nearly always is more than 100%. Each partner takes credit for more than they likely contributed, but feels as if they are telling the truth as they remember it. This unconscious distortion of reality allows us to feel better about ourselves and to move on to new decisions rather than agonizing over the past. To reduce the dissonance we may feel when our actions and beliefs do not match, we must provide ourselves (and sometimes others) with an explanation of why we behaved in such a way. The creation of this explanation allows us to view ourselves as sensible and competent.

Often those who have placed a great deal of effort into events that do not work out such as supporting a political candidate who turns out to be a crook, find ways to explain why their support was important, or are reluctant to believe the truth about the candidate. They feel the need to justify their efforts. Those who spent no time in support of the candidate may not have a problem believing the individual behaved criminally because they have less of an investment. Similarly, fraternity members who have gone through a rough hazing period are likely to claim they are more devoted to the organization than those who did not have to go through such a ritual. In part, those who went through the hazing want to believe that the suffering had been worth it. These and other examples of effort justification occur for everyone at some point and even awareness of the phenomena does not make one immune to its power.

We have a tendency to interpret information in a way that makes it consistent with our preexisting schemas and beliefs. Politicians who are found to have accepted bribes from lobbyists often began by accepting lunch to listen to some ideas, then perhaps talking on a golf course, and then maybe taking a golf trip. As the “gifts” become more extravagant, the politician rationalizes their actions by convincing him or herself that they have not been influenced by the desires of the lobbyist. They may also however may gradually change their beliefs by telling themselves that the lobbyist does make some good points.

Tavris and Aronson discuss the confirmation bias through the example of the 1960 Nixon/Kennedy debates. Those individuals who supported Kennedy watched the debate and believed that Nixon was taking a beating, while those that supported Nixon believed the reverse to be true. Stereotypes and prejudice may also be reinforced by confirmation bias, as we look for behavior consistent with what we would accept from a certain group for whom we hold (generally negative) stereotypes. Even when presented with contrary evidence, individuals tend to dismiss the contrary information and persevere in their original beliefs.

Memory can also fall victim to expectations and biases. James Frey wrote the book A Million Little Pieces, recounting his battle with addiction. After the book became a best seller, it was found that the book contained many details that were not true, but he claimed he had written what he believed had occurred. While Frey ultimately admitted to the misinformation, our memories often are distorted to help us recall events in the manner in which we want to remember it rather than as it actually occurred. When others are amused by a story we tell, we may have a tendency to embellish the story on the next telling while still believing that we are indeed sharing what actually happened. Even when we are confident about memories it does not mean that the memory is correct. We can also incorporate other people’s memories into our own without realizing that we are adopting these new memories. Even in bizarre situations such as people claiming to have been abducted by aliens, they really believe that these events have occurred because their brain is telling them that these memories are real and must be true.

The way in which questions are framed or posed to others may influence what people recall and can permanently change their memories of an event. These false memories are sometimes used to convict innocent people of crimes they did not commit. Thomas Lee Goldstein, a college student and ex-marine was sent to prison for 24 years for a crime he did not commit. The district attorney and detectives who prosecuted the case were convinced they had found the correct culprit and even after Goldstein was found innocent, claimed that he was guilty. One prosecutor stated, “Innocent men are never convicted. Don't worry about it, it will never happen…it is a physical impossibility.” With a statement like that, it is unlikely that this prosecutor’s mistakes will ever be freely admitted. Prosecutors convince themselves that even if the person is not guilty of the accused crime, they are still a bad person and perhaps deserved the prison time for some unknown offense. This rationalization makes the prosecutors less culpable and reduces cognitive dissonance. Once detectives or prosecutors determine who they believe is guilty nearly every action will be viewed as a confirmation of guilt even in the face of contrary evidence. Even DNA evidence has been dismissed because detectives are so convinced that “have their man.” The assumption of guilt often produces a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Couples who are divorcing often implicitly reassure themselves of their mates negative attributes to convince themselves that they are making the correct decision, while those who remain married to flawed partners downplay those flaws to convince themselves that the person is worthy of their efforts. When we inflict pain on others, we convince ourselves that they must have done something to deserve this and we become more convinced regarding the victims negative behavior or attributes. In describing the atrocities of killing civilians during the Vietnam War, General William Westmoreland said, “The Oriental does not put the same high price on life as does the Westerner.” If Westmoreland had recognized that all life was equal, he would have had to admit his own poor choices. Even Hitler believed that others began the fight, claiming that Germany had been humiliated at the Treaty of Versailles and had to retaliate in some fashion.

In some cases however, individuals have come forward to admit their mistakes, John F. Kennedy told newspaper publishers after the Bay of Pigs invasion, “This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For as a wise man once said, ‘An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it…’”. Patients are less likely to sue for malpractice when a doctor admits mistakes. Tavris and Aronson recommend putting space between a thought and a behavior by taking a moment to reflect on the best course of action. This short reprieve may allow us the time necessary to make a better decision in the first place which can eliminate the need for creating a justification later. General Lee took responsibility for the thousands of Southern dead at the Battle of Gettysburg, yet this made him more revered by his troops. Carol Dweck discusses how learning from our mistakes can help us develop a growth mindset which allows people to learn more and perform better in the long run. In 2007 George Bush responded to questions regarding the War in Iraq and was finally able to admit, “Mistakes were Made”.

Authors

Laura Brandt, Nancy Fenton, and Jessica Flitter are AP Psychology instructors. Nancy Fenton teaches at Adlai E. Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, Laura Brandt teaches at the College Du Leman in Geneva, Switzerland and Jessica Flitter teachers at West Bend East High School in West Bend, Wisconsin.If you are interested in reviewing a book for the blog or have comments or questions, please e-mail us at either laurabrandt85@gmail.com or nfenton@d125.org or jflitter1@gmail.com.